Copyright © Government of South Australia 2002
All legislation herein is reproduced by permission but does not purport to be the official or authorised version. It is subject to Copyright. The Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth) permits certain reproduction and publication of South Australian legislation. In particular s. 182A of the Act enables a complete copy to be made by or on behalf of a particular person. For the reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Act, permission should be sought in writing from the South Australian Attorney-General's Department. Requests in the first instance should be addressed to the Attorney-General.

LAKE EYRE BASIN (INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT) BILL
The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL (Minister for Water Resources) obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to ratify and approve the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Mr Lewis: It is a very important bill.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: I thank the member for Hammond for saying that: yes, it is a very important bill. I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

The Lake Eyre Basin Agreement is a major achievement for the South Australian government and represents the start of a new era in the management of the Basin. It fulfils a South Australian government initiative to cooperate with the commonwealth and Queensland governments to recognise the environmental, economic and social values of the Basin and to work towards integrated catchment management.

The Lake Eyre Basin Agreement was signed on behalf of the South Australian and Queensland governments in Birdsville on Saturday 21 October 2000. The Commonwealth had previously signed the agreement.

Both of South Australia's great river basins-the Murray Darling Basin and the Lake Eyre Basin have their origins in other states. Our geographic position at the receiving end of these river systems makes it imperative that we establish formal cooperative agreements with our upstream neighbours. We have had such arrangements in place for the Murray Darling Basin for some time, and now have developed the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement for the Cooper Creek and Diamantina River systems. The Lake Eyre Basin Agreement establishes a formal and effective way for the South Australian government to engage strategically and constructively with the Queensland and Commonwealth governments for the management of the Basin.

While the Lake Eyre Basin is perhaps less well known than the Murray Darling Basin, it is nevertheless of great importance to South Australia. Lake Eyre Basin rivers have not been substantially altered by major regulation and extraction. They are amongst the few remaining major rivers with near natural flows and have some of the most variable flow regimes in the world. We have an opportunity for good, sustainable environmental management in the Lake Eyre Basin, an opportunity for `getting it right', an opportunity that we have been slow to recognise in other river systems and are now struggling to correct.

The agreement had its origins in the controversy over a proposal to grow irrigated cotton on Cooper Creek in Queensland. Concern by the community and the South Australian government for the future health of this Australian icon led to the signing in May 1997 of the Heads of Agreement for the Lake Eyre Basin by the South Australian, Queensland and commonwealth governments. This important document provided the basis for developing the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement. Since the beginning, South Australia has been the driving force behind the agreement.

The agreement requires the preparation and adoption of policies and strategies for the Basin and periodic reporting on the `state of the rivers'. These should provide a sound basis for long-term management and monitoring of the Basin.

The agreement requires approval and ratification by the parliaments of South Australia and Queensland. The passage of this bill is therefore vital to give effect to the agreement. In introducing this bill so soon after signing the agreement, South Australia is again leading the way.

A comprehensive community consultation process was undertaken and several changes were made to earlier drafts of the agreement in response to community views. During this consultation process and at the signing ceremony in Birdsville, the community has demonstrated its support for the agreement.

The community has also made great strides towards an integrated approach to management of the Lake Eyre Basin. Overcoming the logistic difficulties of a vast area and a small population, the Basin community has made linkages across State borders and has undertaken a range of activities over the past three years, the most significant being identification of management issues, community education and the development of strategic plans which were also launched in Birdsville on 21 October 2000.

The agreement provides an excellent opportunity for the further development of partnerships between government, the local community and other stakeholders.

The Arid Areas Catchment Water Management Board will prepare a catchment water management plan for the South Australian portion of the Lake Eyre Basin rivers and will play an important role in the Basin. The Board is also required to advise the South Australian Minister for Water Resources on activities in other states which are likely to affect the water resources in the Board's area.

The State Water Plan recognises the Lake Eyre Basin as one of South Australia's five key water resources and acknowledges the importance of the agreement to protect South Australia's interests in the Basin.

The water resources of the Lake Eyre Basin in South Australia are valued for the conservation of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, in particular South Australia's Coongie Lakes wetlands are classified as Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. These 19 800 square kilometre wetlands support 73 species of waterbirds and 13 wetland-dependent species, of which 43 and 9 respectively have been recorded breeding.

The Cooper and Diamantina provide water for stock and flooding is beneficial for floodplain grazing by the pastoral industry.

Floods sustain vast wetlands, support rangeland grazing and are the trigger for breeding activity in many native species. During dry periods, the wetlands of the Lake Eyre Basin are vital drought refuges for wildlife.

The Basin's two major rivers, the Diamantina River and Cooper Creek flow through semi-arid and arid regions of Australia, and paradoxically some of their most significant wetlands coincide with some of the most arid areas of the continent.

The terminal lake of the system is Lake Eyre, a vast ephemeral salina which experiences minor flooding on average every couple of years, mainly from the Diamantina River and occasional extensive floods from both the Diamantina and the Cooper in exceptional years. Both systems support important wetlands.

The agreement and passage of the Lake Eyre Basin (Intergovernmental Agreement) Bill together provide the framework for the protection of these great nationally and internationally important environmental assets.

I commend this bill to the House.

Explanation of Clauses

Clause 1: Short title

This clause is formal.

Clause 2: Commencement

The measure will be brought into operation by proclamation.

Clause 3: Interpretation

The relevant agreement for the purposes of the bill is the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement, a copy of which is included in the schedule to the bill.

Clause 4: Ratification of Agreement

The agreement is to be ratified and approved by the Parliament.

Clause 5: Facilitation of Agreement

The Minister and State agencies are to do anything reasonably necessary to ensure the performance and observance of the agreement.

Schedule

The schedule sets out the intergovernmental agreement.

Mr HILL secured the adjournment of the debate.

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 November. Page 712.)

Mr HILL (Kaurna): The opposition supports this legislation, which has been a long time coming. Prior to the last state election, on 3 May you, Sir, as the then Minister for the Environment-

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr HILL: -and a good minister, as my colleague says; the last good minister for this area. On 3 May 1997 you said that this piece of legislation would be introduced for debate during the parliamentary session of 1998. I am sure, sir, that if you had still been the minister that would have happened. In May 1998 the next minister-minister Kotz-said, `It is not expected to be introduced until the end of this year'; that is, 1998. It is now 2001 and the bill has finally been introduced in this place. No doubt a series of elections in Queensland has caused part of the problem, but I also suspect that the rearrangement of the department, the changes of ministers and the shuffling of priorities have put this on the back burner for some time. In his second reading speech the minister stated:

The Lake Eyre Basin Agreement is a major achievement for the South Australian government. . .

As usual, this is an overblown claim by the minister, and it is worth examining this point. Is this in fact a major achievement of the South Australian government? If it is a major achievement, it just shows how minor is everything else they do. What does this legislation do? It does two main things.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: Who wrote this nonsense?

Mr HILL: It is self authored. First, it is a formal agreement between South Australia, Queensland-

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kaurna.

Mr HILL: Thank you, sir; I appreciate your protection. It is a formal agreement between South Australia, Queensland and the commonwealth. In some ways it is similar to the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), but only in some ways; it does not have the power that that commission has, and I will get to that later. It is a good thing-I am not criticising it- but it is hardly a major achievement.

Secondly, it is basically an agreement to work together (to quote the minister's second reading speech) `to jointly address issues of water management and related natural resources associated with cross border river systems in the basin'. In other words, it is an agreement to agree; it is about good intentions.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HILL: I hope they are honourable intentions; I guess it is up to the members of the forum. Why is it so important to have agreement about this area? There are two major rivers in the basin: the Cooper in South Australia and the Diamantina in Queensland. They are important to us for economic reasons, particularly for the pastoral industry, and they are also especially important for environmental reasons. As members would no doubt know, the two rivers are largely unaltered or unregulated rivers, which during flood periods sustain vast wetlands, which are the breeding grounds for many native birds. The Coongee Lakes wetlands, which are in that area, are classified under the RAMSAR convention. That is a particularly important area and supports 73 species of water birds and 13 wetland dependent species, so it is important that this area be protected.

The impetus for the agreement comes from proposals from Queensland in the mid 1990s, when there was a proposal to grow irrigated cotton at Cooper Creek. While it is true that South Australia will be the main beneficiary of any agreements made-given that changes to the system in Queensland affect us, whereas changes we might make in South Australia will have no impact at all in Queensland-it is overstating the case to say that this is a major achievement. It is a good start, but nothing more.

This would have been a major achievement for the government if the agreement had contained a number of objectives. First, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has stated that as a primary objective the agreement should maintain the natural flow regime of the Lake Eyre Basin rivers. That is a very sensible point. If the agreement had that in it, we would have confidence that the agreement would make some sense. I can understand that it may have been difficult for the minister, or any of the ministers from South Australia, to get that promise up. But if it did have that, that would have been a major achievement.

Secondly, with respect to the body itself, there has been some criticism that the ministerial forum (as it has been called) does not have the same strength or the same power that the Murray-Darling Council would have. It has taken us almost a century to get to the stage where the Murray-Darling Basin has a well thought through, well resourced and reasonably powerful body. I guess the question needs to be asked: how long will it take for this forum to be turned into something which has similar kinds of powers? The other thing which would make it a major achievement is if the Northern Territory and New South Wales also were included in the agreement. As it is, only two of the players, that is, Queensland and South Australia, as well as the commonwealth, are involved in it. Two other bodies, the Northern Territory and New South Wales, are not.

What would also have given it major achievement status would be if the Coongie Lakes wetlands was given some greater protection by this agreement. As members would know, this is a unique part of South Australia. It is a Ramsar listed site, but, despite years of work, there is no Ramsar plan yet in place. Wilderness nomination for the site has not been progressed, and it is still exposed to mining exploration and pastoral activities. So, if Coongie Lakes had been protected by this agreement, it would have been a major achievement. The next item that would have given it that sort of status would be if it had achieved what Robert Hill, the current Minister for Water Resources-great friend, colleague and ally over River Murray issues, at least-said when he-

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr HILL: Robert Hill supported the member for Stuart for preselection. He has probably lived to regret that ever since.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HILL: I will not put that on the record. I will leave that up to you. Back in April 1998, Robert Hill, the federal Minister for the Environment, said that he refused to nominate the area for world heritage listing, saying that it was believed that the community-based efforts were the best way to protect the area. I must say, that is a whole lot of nonsense. But if this agreement that we are passing in this House today provided that level of protection, it would have been a major achievement. Time will tell how effective this agreement will be. It is a good start, no more than this. The opposition certainly supports the legislation, but we will wait and see before commending it as a major achievement.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart): I am pleased to participate in this debate. It is interesting, we have 25 pages here. I have been reading through it again, and I really wonder what benefit this will be to my long suffering constituents. We have just heard from the honourable shadow minister: he is obviously supporting world heritage listing for this area.

Mr Hill interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That is what he is going on about. I will be very pleased to tell all those people up there-world heritage listing; get rid of the people and have no activity. For the benefit of the member for Kaurna, thousands of tourists are travelling through that part of South Australia at the present time, and have done so throughout this year. What we need there is more facilities, encouragement for people to invest, more accommodation and better roads, so that the people of South Australia can enjoy this unique part of the state.

I note that three ministers have placed their name on this august and distinguished document-obviously with great fanfare and chest beating of all concerned, who would go up there and enjoy themselves. I am not sure whether my constituents enjoyed their presence, but at least they would know where the place is on the map now, and that would be of considerable benefit. However, let us have a look-

Mr Clarke interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, I am coming to the minister, because he is trying very hard to protect the interests of my constituents. I am looking at page 16 of this august and distinguished document, which obviously has been cobbled together by a number of Sir Humphreys over a long period of time. The document states that there will be appropriate representation. I know what `appropriate' means. Is it one? Because if you are one person on a 15 person committee, you might as well not be there. The document states that there will be appropriate representation `(a) for Aboriginal interests'. Who will that be? Will it be the traditional Aboriginal people, or will it be their white advisers, that group of people who so manipulate and rort the Aboriginal people? Will we have more of them on it? I want to know, because the taxpayers are sick of funding those people and their games. Then you have the pastoralists who have been there who have made the investment and are getting an income out of it and employing people. They certainly want to have a proper interest, an agricultural interest-

Mr Clarke: What do they pay for their leases?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, if it were not for the pastoralists, there would not be any infrastructure up there. It is the pastoralists who put the airstrips in so that the Flying Doctor can go up there. They have provided the facilities and they are doing good things for the people of South Australia, and they will do more. Then we have mining and petroleum interests. They certainly made a huge investment there. The member for Kaurna wants to get rid of them. He does not want the exploration up there. I am sure that SANTOS and all those other companies which have just applied for and been granted licences will be interested to know that, because they will certainly make a considerable contribution. Then we have conservation interests-who is he talking about? Then we have tourist interests, then matters of interest affecting the Cooper Creek river system, and matters of interest affecting the Diamantina River system, as referred to in clause 1.1 of this agreement.

That is a mixed and diverse group, but I would put it to the House and the minister that the appropriate representation is that there should be a majority of local people who live in that area on any board or committee-

Mr Clarke interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: If he wants to, I would be very happy to supply him with a list of most suitable and distinguished people. I will have no trouble at all in doing that.

Mr Clarke: A chainsaw in one hand and a pick in the other.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That's all right. Well, you know-

The Hon. M.K. Brindal interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: If we want to see the people of South Australia have any future we have to be able to produce something that we can sell-whether it is your tourist industry, beef or mining. You talk about electricity problems: if it were not for the Moomba operation that is taking place throughout Gidgealpa, Moomba up into Jackson there would be some electricity problems in South Australia if we did not have the pipeline coming down to Adelaide and going to Stony Point. That is all part of this. Let me say also that it is very important because tourism is a very significant activity in that part of the state. My constituents-

Mr Clarke: Perhaps we can put Le Mans up there.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I have not been to the Le Mans. It is really not on my visiting list. The interest of my constituent who takes the people down the creek on the punt ought to be taken care of, because already he has been penalised. They want to charge him per head, instead of paying a licence fee. He has been victimised by groups that have no understanding of commercial reality-and we are having a bit to say about that. But I want an assurance from the minister that this sort of grandiose agreement which three ministers have entered into-

Mr Clarke: It means nothing.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: One could be unkind and say it is probably as useful as what Paddy shot at, but I will not say that. Perhaps that would be unkind of me. But I want the Minister-because I know that he has the interests of the people of South Australia at heart and will vigorously defend their rights-to give an assurance that views of the people who live in these areas will be taken into consideration and that they will not be overridden or ignored by bureaucracy or by executive decision-making, because if that is the case-

Mr Clarke: He can only speak for about the next six months. After that-

The Hon. M.K. Brindal: Well, if you get control of this place God help all of us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can the discussion across the floor cease.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I was going to respond to the interjection but that would be out of order, wouldn't it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I wouldn't do that. But I want to make sure that their interests are taken into account, because they are the people who have to live by these decisions. It is all very well for people to fly in, to be instant experts and to then leave, to make ill-informed decisions and impose them on the long suffering communities there.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, it is; then they have to wear it. I will give the House an example of how these ill-informed people-

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It would do the honourable member good to listen; he might learn a little. Some years ago, I arrived at Innamincka in the company of the then Leader of the Opposition. We were confronted with a group of most angry and annoyed locals who told us that the National Parks ranger in a fit of petulance had locked the town water supply so that they could not get any water. I phoned the then Director-General and asked him whether he would to be on the 7.30 Report that night. When I explained the situation to him in precise Australian terms, he got the tenor of what we were going to do. He said, `Take the bolt cutters and cut off the lock. I can assure you that the gentleman in question will be outside my office at 9 o'clock in the morning.' Fortunately, he was never seen there again. That is the sort of activity I am talking about.

Everyone understands and recognises that the unique character of places such as Innamincka and others needs to be preserved. They have a great deal to offer to the tourist and other industries. We must make sure that we give careful consideration to the views of the people who live there, in the pastoral bodies and the mining and exploration industries; otherwise, we will affect the welfare of the people of this state and interfere with the ability of that area to support communities that have been there for a long time. My concern is the welfare, interests and needs of communities in that area. Those communities will be affected first. We must be careful when we sign agreements of this nature, because the people of Australia are getting sick and tired of people in Canberra drawing up these national agreements- whether they be on transport or whatever. They are ill-informed. Most of them could not drive a nail into a bit of softwood, let alone drive a vehicle of any description, yet some of them have become instant experts in Australia.

Radio talkback hosts always amaze me when they talk about having only one government in Canberra, because most of them are saying that they do not think people in the smaller states can look after their own affairs. That is what they are advocating. I always view any of these national agreements with a great deal of suspicion, because I have seen them come out of the woodwork and impose their ill gotten ways on unsuspecting and hard working decent South Australians. That affects them greatly, and they should not have to put up with it. I want the minister to assure me that their views will be protected and taken into account and, further, to make sure that this is not just the first step down a deliberate road of getting rid of these people from this part of the area. Rather, we should ensure that the pastoralists, miners and people in the tourist industry can stay forever. These things have a habit of growing like topsy. Before you know it, they will have added clauses to it, and by regulation and other devious means brought other provisions into effect, and people do not realise this until it has happened.

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. I have been waiting for a fair while, because I have been aware of this document. I am also aware that all sorts of people are commenting about this part of the state, but not too many are actually paying anything towards it. The member for Ross Smith talked about the pastoralists. They are some of the few people who are making a contribution to live there. They are providing their own power, water and services to the travelling public. They have done a lot of good for the country. It is the same at Innamincka: you have the storekeeper and the hotel, and I am pleased to say that in the near future there will be some further good development in that part of the state that will provide extra benefits for the people of South Australia such as more employment. We have to encourage those sorts of activities. We do not want to allow those sorts of agreements to be used as a vehicle to stop development.

I am aware that certain groups want to live in tents and have candles. Most of us do not want that; most of us want to see a bit of progress. The House should be aware that, when some of these people get their own way, when they declared the area a regional reserve, the local community at Innamincka came to me and said, `This is a nonsense.' So I led a deputation to the then Minister for the Environment and Natural Resources. They explained in great detail to that minister the foolishness of this escapade. The minister ignored them and took the advice of the Sir Humphreys. Now there are no freehold blocks there for people who want to buy them. They cancelled the freehold titles on a lot of unallocated blocks in which people may have wanted to invest. Up until a short time ago, they were offering an annual licence to invest large amounts of money in the freehold blocks. The freehold blocks did no harm, but Sir Humphrey Appleby and his cohorts knew best. They took no notice of the local people and, as sure as what they said 10 years ago, all the roosters have come home to roost. The minister must make sure that does not happen again. I will be keeping a close watch on what takes place in relation to this agreement, because we should be careful before it is extended any further.

Mr VENNING (Schubert): I rise to support this bill and compliment the minister on all the work he has done in relation to this issue, which has been before this parliament for many years. At long last we have an agreement with Queensland. It is the persuasive powers of our minister that has enabled this to happen. I know he has made a visit there, and I hope that I am able to go there myself with the minister to meet the stakeholders and marvel at what has been achieved.

The Lake Eyre Basin agreement is a major achievement for the South Australian government, and it represents the start of a new era in the management of the basin. Both South Australia's great river basins-the Murray Darling Basin and the Lake Eyre Basin-have their origins in other states. Our geographic position at the receiving end of these great river systems makes it imperative that we establish formal cooperative agreements with our upstream neighbours. That has been a matter of much political rhetoric in recent months.

The Lake Eyre Basin agreement establishes a formal and effective way for the South Australian government to engage strategically and constructively with the Queensland and commonwealth governments for the management of the basin. Lake Eyre Basin rivers have not been substantially altered by major regulation and extraction. They are amongst the few remaining major rivers with near natural flows and have some of the most variable flow regimes in the world. We have an opportunity to get it right, because we have been slow to recognise the mistakes we have made in other river systems, and we are now struggling to correct them. Thank goodness we can do that.

The signing in May 1997 of the heads of agreement for the Lake Eyre Basin by the South Australian, Queensland and commonwealth governments make this important document the basis for developing the Lake Eyre Basin agreement. The passage of this bill is, therefore, vital to give effect to this agreement.

A comprehensive community consultation process was undertaken, and the Birdsville community has demonstrated its support for that agreement. Only a few weeks ago I visited the area myself. I spoke to them on this very matter, and certainly that is correct. The community has also made great strides towards an integrated approach to the management of the Lake Eyre Basin. The basin community has made linkages across state borders and has undertaken a range of activities over the past three years. The agreement provides an excellent opportunity for the further development of partnerships between government, the local community and, indeed, all the stakeholders involved.

The State Water Plan recognises the Lake Eyre Basin as one of South Australia's key water resources and acknowledges the importance of the agreement to protect South Australia's interests in the basin. The water resources of the Lake Eyre Basin in South Australia are valued for their conservation of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems; in particular, South Australia's Coongie Lakes wetlands are classified as wetlands of international importance.

These 19 800 square kilometres of wetlands support 73 species of waterbirds and 13 wetland dependent species. The Cooper and Diamantina provide water for stock, and flooding is beneficial for the flood plain grazing in the pastoral industry. As I said, the basin's two main rivers, the Diamantina and the Cooper Creek, flow through semi-arid and arid regions of Australia. Paradoxically, some of the most significant wetlands coincide with some of the most arid areas of our state. Certainly, I was amazed to discover that the Cooper Creek also supports a very active fishery. When one visits the area, it is sometimes just a dry creek bed, but when the water flows-and it certainly flows-it is a very active fishery, indeed. A very successful business in the area has certainly done very well.

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member for Ross Smith interjects; he wants me to retire up there. When I do eventually retire from this place, Lake Eyre will certainly be one of those destinations where I hope to spend much of my time, because it is a beautiful part of Australia. I certainly appreciate the area, as do thousands of Australians. It is truly one of the secrets of Australian tourism. Certainly the ERD Committee, as many members would know, is currently studying ecotourism and the committee hopes to visit the area in a few weeks' time.

When I visited the area I saw some problems in relation to the overtaxing of the facilities which tourism is bringing to this region. The facilities at William Creek, one of the favourite take-off points for scenic flights over Lake Eyre, are heavily taxed. The hotel itself is a tourism icon. It is a great little pub with names displayed all over the ceiling. However, with the number of people visiting the area, the toilet facilities and everything else are totally overloaded. Eight aeroplanes can be parked on the road taking hourly flights over Lake Eyre. There is a queue. We had to book a month in advance to get a seat on one of those aeroplanes.

A new shop is located opposite the hotel and business is booming, so we must ensure that we at least keep up with this success and not only provide the tourists with suitable accommodation and comforts but also, and most importantly, protect the asset they have come to see, that is, a very fragile environmental region that is our Lake Eyre. To some extent I agree with the member for Stuart: management must be with those who know the area and all stakeholders need to be part of the process. We want to make sure that the people involved feel that they own this process. We are not trying to shove it down their throat. I am sure that most of them do not need to be a victim of the heavy sell because they understand the fragility of their region and they understand that protection is most important.

The interests of pastoralists are very important to the economy of our state. They have lived through very difficult times. How some of these people have survived the past 15 or 20 years is beyond me. With sheep and wool prices being extremely depressed, I am amazed that these people have been able to eke out a living but they have done so. Thank goodness for beef!

The Hon. M.K. Brindal interjecting:

Mr VENNING: These people have existed even with depressed wool prices. Beef is the only thing that kept a lot of them there but they have existed and they are part of the tourist attraction. People come to see the people who exist out there. They are certainly part of the tourism icon that is our Outback. We now see a return to better and more buoyant times with sheep and wool prices increasing. Lambs are now selling in excess of $100 per head, which will mean a tremendous uplift for the economies of these people who have lived in these areas for so long.

Certainly, it will give relief not only to them but also to their bankers, I would think. We should be very pleased that these people are custodians of our valuable arid lands. They have lived out there and maintained stock and certainly it has been very difficult to manage the land. One of the most important aspects that we need to discuss in relation to the arid lands is the control of rabbits. The calicivirus has meant so much to the region in terms of the eradication of this feral pest. We are now seeing much of the natural-

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am looking opposite, and those members want to beware of the calicivirus. We are now seeing the revegetation of so many of these areas previously destroyed by rabbits. It is hard to believe and realise that areas that were dry, barren and bare for so long are now coming alive with revegetation. I see it in our own creeks along the Rocky River at Crystal Brook. We thought that it was because we had not had cattle for a couple of years but, no, it was the rabbits. Because these young gum trees are progressing we are locking out the cattle. By eradicating the rabbits the trees are growing and now the land owners (me included) are saying, `I will protect and give the trees a go by not putting my cattle in or fencing this area off.'

We are seeing the first revegetation of some areas that we have not seen for many generations. Never let us underestimate what the calicivirus and the control of feral rabbits has done. Rabbits were very destructive. I am very pleased to see that we have made great progress. This is a unique area of Australia, our state and, indeed, the world. My wife and I visited the region, as I said, only a few months ago, and the ERD Committee will also visit shortly to look at these problems I have highlighted. I am most impressed with the way that Australians value and appreciate our Outback regions.

Environmental protection measures do not need to be enforced: we all do it naturally. We all keep to the track and the path that is set out and we are all very conscious of how fragile it is. I want to pay tribute, again, to the minister. For many years we have talked about how to negotiate with other states, particularly when the water falls in those states and flows down the river to South Australia. At the moment it is a very difficult issue. I notice that the shadow minister smiles. It is a very difficult issue. If the shadow minister has answers to these complex questions I want to hear; I have an open mind.

When the water falls on the land in another state and then flows into our state what are our rights and what are the rights of the other states? It is a very difficult issue. How do we protect the ecosystem that is that river? Certainly, it is difficult; and the same theory applies to the Snowy River with the Snowy River Scheme and also the water coming to South Australia, from other states is a very complex issue and I am very pleased that this minister is in charge. I know that it has been a challenge to him. I know that his hair has considerably thinned since he took on the role. I look forward to accepting a ministerial invitation to join him on a visit to the region in the next few weeks.

Mr Clarke interjecting:

The Hon. M.K. Brindal: I will take you up and leave you there any day.

Mr VENNING: The minister will bring me back, I hope. Certainly, I appreciate what the minister has done. As a parliament we are now very aware of the issue, and I am sure that this whole matter has bipartisan support. All credit to the government, and particularly the minister, and I certainly support this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop): I might address that interjection shortly.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: In my good time, Tom. I support this measure and I support the minister in what he has achieved so far. I certainly predict that much more will be achieved for the benefit of this state through this measure, particularly in some of the very delicate and fragile areas in the northern parts of our state. I did not intend to contribute to this debate but I was sitting in my office upstairs listening to the opposition spokesman, the member for Kaurna, speaking to this bill and I was somewhat disappointed that he was belittling the efforts of the government and the minister and the measures that have been taken.

My disappointment about that belittling stems from the fact that we have sought to manage our natural resources in other areas of the state, and I will come back to those in a moment. I believe that in other areas of the state we have got it wrong. In a lot of instances we tried to regulate far too late after too much damage had been done. Often, in those situations, we have regulated without full consultation or, in cases where we have supposedly had full consultation, without taking on board the wants, aspirations and needs of communities in many instances.

So in this particular case, although we have had occupancy of that land for many years and some people would suggest that we have already created some environmental degradation in those areas, I believe that it is gratifying to note that it is not too late to bring in regulations to have binding agreements on the governments involved to see that the future is assured for this, as I say, delicate and fragile part of our state.

It is also gratifying that we have in place now an agreement between the three governments involved in the Lake Eyre Basin-the Queensland government, the South Australian government and the federal government. One of the things that we have often seen, particularly in regard to environmental matters, in our form of federalism is that the federal government has stepped in and taken over management of the environment in quite a few instances. As a firm believer in the sovereignty of the states, I believe that this is a much sounder way to go about it to protect the interests not only of the states but of individuals. People who are working and making a living in those areas will be much better off under this agreement than if they sat back and waited for intervention in the future by some federal government which is hell-bent on appeasing people in capital cities on the eastern seaboard rather than taking measures which are in the best interests of the people concerned. I believe that has happened in the past in quite a few instances.

So, I commend the minister for what he has done. I note that the member for Stuart has a great interest in this area, as has the member for Schubert, who was talking just a few moments ago about pastoralists in that area. It is worth noting, and it has been stated in the House before but I will repeat it, that pastoralists in the South Australian sector of the Lake Eyre Basin contribute something like $50 million per year to the economy of this state. The tourism industry contributes something like another $10 million and I believe that that contribution will grow steadily. So it is economically an important part of the state: ecologically and environmentally it is a hugely important part of the state.

I believe the impetus behind this agreement was the move a few years ago by certain landowners in Queensland to extract large volumes of water to produce cotton using some of the ephemeral rivers which flow through the Lake Eyre Basin. That is the sort of practice, through negotiated agreement, that we must be aware of and ensure that, if it is done, it is done in an environmentally sensitive way. I suggest that is probably not possible, so I am delighted to know that we are not fighting that bushfire at the moment in this instance. I am delighted that we have an agreement in place, albeit that there are plenty of questions and answers to be asked and answered and plenty of negotiations to be gone through. I think that, rather than belittle the efforts of the minister and the government in getting as far as they have already, they should be applauded, and I am sure that this bill will be supported by the whole House and I hope and sincerely believe that the minister will be able to do great things for people in the area involved.

Getting back to the interjection by the member for Hammond about who owns the rain, I read with interest the member for Hammond's newsletter that he published recently and the article that he wrote about the rain. Who owns the rain and who owns the water in our water resources at various points-whether it be above the ground, on the ground, within what is known as the unsaturated zone, or in the aquifer-is an interesting question. The debate has certainly involved people in my electorate in the South-East of the state where there is a lot of people who think they own various things such as the rain or the water at various places. I think it is worth noting that the Water Resources Act does not confer ownership of water in the whole cycle on anyone, least of all the crown. It is not who owns the rain-

The Hon. M.K. Brindal interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Ownership of the water is not conferred on anyone. The rights to actually utilise the water at various stages are implied by various acts of this state. There are rights under the Water Resources Act to extract water and I understand that, legally, after water is extracted, someone could assume that they had ownership of it and can do what they like with it once they have extracted it. But that right to extract does not give ownership of the water in the aquifer. I think this is one of the problems with the ongoing debate in the South-East.

Another thing I think is that it is implied in, say, a freehold title, that somebody should have the right to grow a crop on his land, irrespective of how much rainfall that crop used. As far as the right to harvest water and put it into a dam, which is what I think the interjection from the member for Kaurna was referring to-

Mr Hill interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I overheard you mumbling about harvesting water a few moments ago when the member for Schubert was speaking, and harvesting water is a different matter altogether. Once you harvest water, if you are given a right to harvest water and you put it in your dam or your receptacle, it could be implied that you have ownership of that water. There are some very complicated legal issues there. Just one of the problems that we are encountering in the South-East at the moment is that some people are confusing their rights to do certain things with a right of ownership, and I think that is something which the minister would do well to spell out. But that is digressing. I commend this bill to the House and I am certain that the whole of the House will support it.

Mr LEWIS (Hammond): I am always fearful when I attempt to set down some views which might be at odds with those who are expressing opinions that seem to be popular on the day. However-

Mr Clarke: Don't hold back.

Mr LEWIS: Thank you, pineapple. I invite the honourable member to do likewise. He should not feel constrained. There is nothing worse than political constipation. You should relieve the tension.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can members get back to the bill?

Mr LEWIS: I will try to do that. There is some tension here. It is not really as Freud put it. I am not an anal retentive. I never have been. In this respect, then, I commend the minister for what he has done so far as it has gone, and perhaps I ought to have started by saying it is barely 200- odd years since people, capable of navigating by reliance upon the rigour of applied mathematics to astronomy, arrived on this continent. Since their arrival, with that and many other sciences, they-that is you and me and other members in this place and, indeed, all the people in Australia- have learned that it is possible for us to support a population many times larger than the number of human beings that were living here prior to the arrival and settlement of those folk in our language, commonly referred to as the European settlers. But there have been other settlers that have arrived since that short while ago, 200-odd years.

We or our forebears-and I say `we', because I, too, enjoy participating in the personal discovery of the different corners of this continent, their differing geomorphology, topography and ecology-have learnt a great deal about the fabric of life and what makes it so in the interaction between the natural circumstances, including those variable elements such as climate and the topography on this continent, as distinct from others on earth. So the minister, along with the other ministers with whom he met, has done a great deal, as it were, to secure the survival of the ecosystems in Lake Eyre Basin as they are now; and in no small measure they have not suffered any adverse consequence, in most instances, as a result of the impact of European man's arrival on the continent.

Indirectly and inadvertently, there has been the impact of feral insects and animals. The two worst insects of all, the Australian plague locust and the Australian plague grasshopper, are not feral insects, and they have been a real problem in the basin for a long time-a problem, as we would define it, but not anyone else, least of all the locusts and grasshoppers. They simply respond to the effect of climatic factors over which they have no control nor, one presumes, any understanding. I mention it because, in many instances, so-called modern man has been pretty much like locusts on the landscape: they have simply bred up in numbers way beyond the capacity of the landscape to sustain them in perpetuity and, when they have devastated it, they have died out and/or moved on to other places where, in reduced numbers, they can continue to live.

In this instance, with this legislation we provide the means by which we will not cause such devastation to the fabric of life as we know it and the ecosystems of Lake Eyre without careful consideration. Indeed, we set out and we say that we will not allow that to happen; that is, what is there and the way it will remain there, subject to the natural forces of evolution (whatever they may be), we will seek to preserve. That is good, but I am a bit disturbed to note that might prevent us from mining the basin for valuable minerals and other resources.

I note that in clause 5(11) the mining and petroleum interests will be included in the ministerial forum, but there are other things besides the minerals which, to date, have been taken and in future can be taken without detrimental consequence to the ecosystems in the basin but which, to date, it has not been possible to take because the cost of getting them out literally (in transport cost terms) has been too great. It will not always be so. It is not now so.

Such is the case, for instance, with salt. I do not think anyone would argue that, if we can find a means of utilising the salt, it would not hurt to take a few hundred million tonnes of salt out of the Lake Eyre Basin and put it on other places on this planet where it might be useful because the chemical compounds of which the salt-and `salt' is a generic term-is compromised are very diverse and when segregated are very useful for us. We have come up with the wit to do what one Dr Aro Arakel in GeoProcessors has done not far from Kerang and Swan Hill at a place called Lake Tutcheewop; that is, as it were, without much cost, interfere in the normal processes of crystallisation from the liquor so that we get out compounds that are more valuable to us early on in the process and segregate them from the other things which are there and which would contaminate them and make them worth much less, indeed probably nothing; it would make them worthless.

That is what happens in Lake Eyre right now. When it floods, it is pretty briny-much more so than the sea, if it has been wet for any length of time. That water evaporates and leaves behind a mixture of all these salts with the first stuff crystalizing out being predominantly sodium chloride in crystalline form when it becomes sufficiently concentrated. We cannot use it for anything else than just a mixture of all those salts. The magnesium calcium and other materials of which we might make some use are bound up in that crystalline structure, and the only way in which to segregate them is it do so while they are dissolved. Using the processes which have been devised by this firm called GeoProcessors, based upon the work that Dr Aro Arakel has done, a multibillion dollar industry is available to us.

I hope that illustrates to the House that we ought not simply ban such activities as the one to which I have referred from ever being established in the Lake Eyre Basin simply because it is in the Lake Eyre Basin; and, for as much as there is merit in removing some of the salt, if it is proved to be profitable to do so (and I am sure it will be, especially with the railway line that will be passing through the centre of the Australia in the very near future), it is equally relevant for us to treat any and all such substances, indeed resources of the basin, in the same way, knowing and being careful before we set out to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker-and I am sure you would agree with this point, sir-to ensure that we do not have an adverse impact on any one of the ecosystems to an extent that you put any species at risk.

I do not want to hear from all the mad green greens that you cannot touch anything for fear that something might ultimately occur that will result in a chain reaction of one kind or another in the ecosystem that will leave us without the certainty that all species will survive. They will not. Don Hopgood (a former member of this place) to his credit recognised that point: evolution is a continuing process. However, we have lost from this continent and its ecosystems a number of species as a consequence of the impact of ignorance (we did not know what was going on at the time) by doing things that clearly were detrimental to the survival of those species. They died out very quickly. The introduction of feral predators was probably the worst of them.

I am not an advocate of the policy of being a locust as a human being on the ecosystems or the geomorphology, but I am an advocate of sensible, responsible exploitation wherever it can be shown that we will not endanger the survival of any species, to any marked degree. After all, nothing in this world is certain. I make that last statement, I guess, almost as a throwaway line, but I remind the minister and all members that we have been told about the greenhouse effect and, if it is true and if the kind of precipitation that we have had in the north-east of the state, indeed in the Lake Eyre Basin itself, during the last 16 months (since November 1999), is a part of the consequence of greenhouse, then, hell, the Lake Eyre Basin contains one of the most fragile ecosystems in the world. In the last 16 months we had record rainfall during the summer 1999-2000, followed by near record rainfall or record rainfall last winter 2000, and that has been followed again by well above average rainfall in the South Australian part of the basin during this last summer.

Many plants and animals are in very fine fettle. There is poultry running everywhere. Across many of the pastoral leases there are clutches of emus, the like of which I have not seen any time since I started to venture into the inland-what most people colloquially refer to as the Outback. There is lunch in all directions if you are an emu eater. They do not seem to bother too much. The eagles are fat and they have two or three chicks in their nests, and the emus are running in all directions. A good deal of the life that is normally fairly sparse out there is back in abundance.

If we have that kind of rainfall, or anything near it, over the next 10 years, we will see an amazing change beginning to occur in those ecosystems. We will see that not only in the vegetation in the first instance but also in the insects and other things that reproduce more quickly, as well as in the animals. If greenhouse is here and that is an effect of it, nothing is permanent and the kind of things we have expected from that part of the continent over the past 200 years-the way Sturt and other early explorers described it-will not be the way in which future generations will find it when they go to look. It will have altered.

Having said all that, I want to make a particular plea for what I note is an oversight in clause 5.11 of Part V- Institutional Structure referred to in the intergovernmental agreement which is part of the bill. There is no provision for the development of communities that could live at what you and I would call a much higher standard of living in permanent residence than the indigenous inhabitants- at least, those inhabitants prior to the arrival of Europeans. If you went there to live in permanent dwellings, a great deal more could be made of the land and a far greater number of people could live on the land than have done so to date.

What we have done prior to this point in time is take livestock out there and let them graze the natural bush. Dingoes ate the sheep-not the dirt, by the way-even though we taxed the people who owned the land and who killed the dogs that got inside the fence. I am pleased to say that we have abolished that. That is an aside: I will come back to the main substance of my remarks.

I point out that sheep were not an option. We still have cattle out there, but the big problem which we have and which continues to plague the area is wild camels-and their numbers are exploding. The ABC produced a program on camels and Camelot and the two European researchers (German, I think) who are world experts on feral camels in Australia, no less. If members have seen that program, they will have seen the seriousness of the problem.

It proves that a wider range of species can be successfully grazed. There are some species of sheep, not the European or British breeds, but, rather, the damara-the fat-tailed sheep in Africa which will fight dogs and successfully defend their lambs and their whole flock from predation by the wild dogs and other big cats of Africa. Also, more particularly, we could be growing horticultural crops in some abundance without having a significant amount of the landscape alienated to that purpose. One could grow 10 000 hectares of say, date palms. It is an enormous area, much larger than Victoria and Tasmania put together. Why one could not grow 10 000 hectares of date palms in the Lake Eyre Basin where there is freshwater available is beyond me.

We heard the Minister for Minerals and Energy say earlier today that underlying the area-and this is the burden of my remarks to the House-is the cheapest perpetual source of energy available to human beings anywhere on earth. You do not have to go down several kilometres to get rocks hot enough to obtain very cheap electrical energy-so cheap, in fact, that you could be using it to desalinate the water. Indeed, the way in which you would desalinate the water (if you have half a wit) is to pump the saline water down the hole and let the steam come out; and, after it has driven your turbine and generated the electricity, you condense it and use it. It does not cost anything, other than the capital cost of drilling the hole and the infrastructure cost of capping the bore and getting the water down there and the steam back out.

Altogether then, I am making the plea that in the future the parliament ought not to overlook the fact that we could easily settle a million or more people in the Lake Eyre Basin without having adverse impacts on the survival of-

Mr Hill: How many?

Mr LEWIS: A million or more, easily. In India there would probably be 40 million people living there. There is no reason, with the technology available to us now and the cheap energy which is there and which is very environmentally friendly, not to do that. A million or more people could easily live there. Earth birmed housing would be ideal. There is no provision in the bill for horticulture or aquaculture, yet they would be the two industries on which the communities could live, quite apart from mining and whatever else there may be. Horticulture and aquaculture would be essential, not only to feed the folk who live there-and that would be very easy-but also to export the products from there. Date palms would grow exceptionally well indeed. I do not see any reason at all why we should not do that.

I do not see any greater merit or destructive influence in having a date palm 300 kilometres north of Oodnadatta than an apple tree 30 kilometres out of Hobart where there used to be mountain ash and huon pine, in the case of the Huon Valley. In the case of the site north of Oodnadatta there were probably saltbush and bluebush, or may be even some coolabah or something like that. It does not matter: the fact remains that we ought not to simply leave it be just because it is there in the present form because we could not occupy it at an earlier point in our history. We ought to use it sensibly.

Time expired.

Ms BREUER (Giles): I have listened with interest to a lot of the comments made this afternoon, and I certainly agree with and support this bill. It is very important that we protect our environment in those areas. I will speak only briefly, but I specifically want to talk about one aspect that has been mentioned, that is, tourism when we are promoting these areas. Certainly, there has been an increase in the number of tourists who visit outback Australia, the far north of the state and areas such as Lake Eyre. It is good to see that people are going there to look at the environment and to look at what the outback has to offer.

But there are some problems associated with this, particularly for the people who are living there and who are coping with the influx of tourists in their area. It certainly has a major effect on them. Shortly before Christmas I had the pleasure of spending time with some station owners, including the Bell and Oldfield families around Marree, and they pointed out to me that there are major problems for them as a result of the number of people travelling to the area. This is common across the state where tourists are on the increase.

The sorts of problems they are experiencing are the sorts of problems we would experience if someone was to come into our backyard and park their caravan and then ask to use our toilet and bathroom, our water and any other facilities that we might have. It is a similar situation for these station owners. People are coming onto their properties and asking-and expecting-to use their facilities.

They also have problems with people who get into trouble when travelling north in those areas. They are looking for assistance with breakdowns and expecting station owners, pastoralists, farm owners and people in small communities to provide spare parts, spare wheels, and so on, for their vehicles when they break down. Often people travel to the area in vehicles which are not roadworthy for the roads on which they must travel during these long-distance trips. They also get asked for assistance when people hit kangaroos and when they get caught up with bad weather. Some tourists just do not take account of weather forecasts; they believe that they will still get through on some of the roads in those areas and that there will be no problems. Then they get stuck when there has been a major rain. If you have been on those Outback roads you know the sorts of conditions that can occur after a rain; it is difficult to get through. Often tourists do not take this into account. They think they are fine. They read something in a manual, head off and get themselves in all sorts of trouble.

The pastoralists, farmers and people in those small communities must often provide emergency services to cater for this. They have to go out and pick up vehicles some distances from their town. People in those communities do not begrudge this, because they are happy to share their environment with tourists. They are very happy that people are coming to their areas, and some of the small communities are surviving on the tourist trade that is coming through. However, they do ask that their rights be taken into consideration. As I pointed out in my first example, if someone parked on our back lawn and wanted to use our toilet we might be feeling a bit hesitant about this as well.

There is also the security issue for people in those areas. Often the male partner in the relationship is away from the homestead for some time, and the female partner may be there with small children, and this creates all sorts of difficulties. There is a security issue, and they get frightened by some of the people who go through, because the female partner may not be able to cope well if an emergency occurs with some of the tourists that go through. This issue is not common, but it does concern some people.

They are very happy to encourage tourists to come through their regions, but they believe that they need more assistance in coping with these numbers of tourists. We really need to look at better signposting in those areas and make tourists understand that often they are going through or passing by private property, the owners of which have rights; and they cannot expect these station owners and small communities to support them if they have not provided for themselves adequately in the first instance. A lot of people go out there and think that there is plenty of water in town, so there is plenty of water everywhere they go. They do not realise that often that water is rationed and obtained at great expense to the person using the water. They expect to be given barrels and buckets of water without realising the cost of that water.

Better signposting in those areas could let people realise that it is not as straightforward as driving down North Terrace, and that they need to take into account the needs of the local community. We also need to look at better backup facilities for many of those tourists. This is certainly being worked on, and the police, SES, CFS and other emergency services cope very well, but the need for backup facilities in those areas must be kept constantly at the forefront.

The most important thing is some sort of education program for tourists which could be provided in capital cities, educating people about the dangers in the Outback. We have had some very unfortunate accidents in recent years, when tourists have been stranded and have died in the Outback. It is an issue that needs to be kept ongoing. Not only the dangers in the Outback need to be highlighted but also the fact that people out there cannot be expected to provide everything if you are going through.

Another area that needs to be highlighted to people travelling in those Outback areas is the issue of kangaroos. When we start talking about kangaroos it can be a very emotional issue. It certainly was a very emotional issue for me shortly after Christmas, when I hit a kangaroo on my way from the Far West and spent the next four weeks in that dreadful hot weather without an airconditioner in my car. The kangaroo did not fare too well either; he left bits on my bumper bar. That certainly was a very emotional issue for me. We really need to look at managing the numbers of kangaroos, because they certainly are a major problem in the north of the state.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms BREUER: I am not saying `Shoot 'em all' at all. If you talk to anyone in Outback South Australia you will realise that they are a major problem and a danger to cars out there. I am concerned about tourists who are going through the area and who do not understand the dangers of kangaroos or the damage that they can do to your car. They also do not understand that, if you are bowling along at 110 or 120 and see a kangaroo you do not try to dodge it quickly; you are likely to roll your car and cause yourself a major injury. It is better to hit the kangaroo. For example, one night coming back from Port Lincoln in a 50 kilometre stretch between Cowell and Whyalla I counted 169 kangaroos. That is just the ones I saw; for every one that I saw there were probably seven or eight that I did not see. So, there need to be some serious discussions about the management of kangaroo numbers; we must take emotion out of it and get serious about this. Tourists need to be warned about kangaroos.

Another issue that occurs as a result of the kangaroos out there is that so many of them get killed as vehicles are going through that we now have a problem with eagles. The member for Hammond touched on this. We have a problem with eagles out there. If you are driving along the highway and see in the distance a couple of eagles picking off the remains of a dead kangaroo or a dead emu, the smartest thing you can do is slow down and make lots of noise as you approach. The eagles are so big and heavy that they take ages to get off the ground and are likely still to be trying to get up and fly when you come past.

I do not fancy the idea of having a kangaroo on the front seat with me if it comes through the windscreen-and I am not too keen on an emu either, which causes more damage to the car- but the thought of an eagle coming through my front window terrifies me, so I am extremely careful with eagles. Many people get excited when they see them and drive up so they can see them quickly and cause themselves all sorts of problems. That is another area where there needs to be education for tourists. They need to be very careful when they are travelling on those highways and back roads.

In short, tourism is important in those areas and communities. It is important that people be able to see the beauties of our Outback and our environment out there, but for the farmers, pastoralists, small land owners and smaller communities some issues need to be taken into account. We need to be looking at caring for those people as well.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL (Minister for Water Resources): I thank all members for their contribution. I was disappointed that the member for Kaurna did not see this as the quantum step forward for humanity as the government sees it, but nevertheless I will attempt to answer a couple of his points and those made by some other members, by way of concluding remarks to this phase of this debate. The member for Kaurna commented that it would have been better if, for instance, the governments of the Northern Territory and New South Wales had been involved. I refer the member for Kaurna to the intergovernmental agreement in the schedule for the bill, which appears on page 25.

The member for Kaurna will note that very little of the geographical area of what is described as the basin, and certainly no water run-off areas, exist in New South Wales. Therefore, to include New South Wales would be a bit without meaning. Secondly, the only tributaries affecting the Lake Eyre Basin that run into the Northern Territory are the Georgina and a very small area of the Finke. So, while the geographical area described as the Lake Eyre Basin exists in the Northern Territory and to lesser extent in New South Wales, there was no real reason for including them in the basin agreement. I, as I am sure is the shadow minister, am a great believer that, if you can have two or three governments involved and they all have an interest in the project, that is fine; why would you have five involved when you need only three? In reference to one of the honourable member's comments about the waters, I think that perhaps he has not read, or has not read in depth, or at least interprets differently from me, guiding principle 3, part 1, that consideration of all the issues and the making of all decisions under this agreement will be guided by the following principles: namely, that it be acknowledged.

The document then goes on to state that the naturally variable flow regimes and the maintenance of water quality are fundamental to the aquatic ecosystems of the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement and that the water requirements for the ecological processes, biodiversity and ecologically significant areas within the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement should be maintained, especially by means of flow variability and seasonality: indeed, that flooding throughout the catchments within the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement is beneficial in that it makes a significant contribution to pastoral activities as well as flood plain ecosystem processes.

In answer to the point that I think the shadow minister was making in his debate about water and the needs of the water cycle within the basin, these issues are, in fact, covered in the guiding principles of the agreement and, I assure this House, will be attended to in the ministerial council.

With respect to the contribution by the member for Stuart, I would hope that all parliaments and all governments in this nation are getting past the fact that they believe they are the repository of all knowledge. I think it is tending to be a guiding principle for governments throughout the nation that, where they pass legislation such as this, it has to be in concert with and in a constructive partnership with all the relevant players, be they the community, local government, state government or national government; these agreements cannot and will not work until there is ownership of the programs and of the guiding principles of every part of the agreement at the very basic level.

The member for Stuart, I think, is aware that the local community was one of the driving forces behind the advent of this agreement. It was a request for irrigation in Queensland using some of these ephemeral waters that very much focused much of the basin community on what the likely impacts would be of massive development, and this agreement comes not only because government willed it to come but also because the communities themselves have a very profound interest in this. I would like it recorded that, by whichever means access to community advice for the ministerial forum occurs, local interests can, and will, be paramount in my mind and, I am sure, in the minds of my colleagues from Queensland and the commonwealth.

I particularly wish to pay a tribute to Minister Welford, who was, until recently, the minister responsible for this area in Queensland. He has recently been promoted-or demoted, I should say, to become Attorney-General, I believe: I cannot see that that would be an escalation in the scale of things, as I see them. But I wish him luck. Minister Welford was indeed a very constructive minister with respect to both this agreement and the Murray-Darling Ministerial Council in relation to the needs of the basin rather than the parochial needs even of his own state. I know that Queensland has come in for criticism in not signing off the cap in the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, and so they should. But I believe that we are much further advanced because we had Minister Welford at the helm in Queensland than we would have been in many other contingencies. I would like to place on the record my thanks to him for his government's cooperation in formulating this agreement, along with the commonwealth and, indeed, for his constructive work in other projects in which we have been jointly involved.

I thank again all those members who contributed. I acknowledge that I am somewhat surprised that the debate has taken this long but I am most pleased, because it shows that many members of this House, whether they come from the more remote areas-such as the members for Giles and Stuart-do have an interest in some of our more ephemeral areas and some of the areas which can at least be described as national icons and part of the national estate. I thank all members for their contribution and I look forward to their supporting this bill through its committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr HILL: There are five clauses, and I have about four or five questions. I am not sure that they tie in with any particular clause, so I will just ask them and the Acting Chairman may have to rule me out of order. My first question relates to the forum, as the body that is being established is called. Can the minister explain what powers and authorities it has compared to the ministerial council that looks after the Murray-Darling- because there has been a criticism that this is a weaker body and that a ministerial council would be stronger, have more authority and be able to achieve more things.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Mainly it will prepare policies and strategies based on the guidelines outlined and prepare a state of the rivers report. It would, I think, depend on your point of view. You could argue, and I think argue quite convincingly, in terms of the ministerial council for the Murray- Darling Basin, that this is in fact a fish of a different species. The shadow minister knows that the Murray-Darling Basin is absolutely critical in social and economic terms. It occupies one-seventh of the land mass of the nation, and so on-and I will not go into all the arguments. This is a different system: it is an ephemeral system. It is, I think, no less important as part of the fabric of this nation. It is no less important to those who live up there, but it has a whole set of different requirements and will require different management techniques.

It is certainly thought at present that the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the ministerial council have different powers, and powers that are exercised much more stringently and regularly, in that you have all the weirs there, you have all the irrigators and you have all the population, so there is a whole set of complexities that go with that. We meet, I think, two or three times a year, for instance. I know that my head of department is a commissioner of the River Murray (he is away today), and they have 20 papers to consider. The complexity of that system gives rise to one regime; this gives rise to another.

This is, I think, the crux of the question: we believe that this forum, as it is so far proposed, will be no less effective in protecting the ecological interests and the environmental interests and all the interests and water in the area. We believe that it will be just as effective. But it is not as complex or as administratively heavy as the Murray-Darling Basin Commission-different systems, different requirements.

Mr HILL: The minister explained that in some detail, but what I guess I am really looking at is the powers that the forum will have. For example, when it makes a decision, what force does that decision have? Does it have legal force in the way in which some decisions of the Murray-Darling Council, for example, have legal force and are then binding on the states? Does it make recommendations which are then taken back to the individual constituencies, or can it make decisions which are then binding on all the players?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: There is no doubt that this agreement relies on the goodwill of the three governments involved. Indeed, if there was not an inherent level of goodwill, they would never have signed the agreement. I refer to what I said about Queensland, which is to be commended in this matter. Nevertheless, the agreement binds them to do as we are doing and put this before a parliament and to then act in accordance within the principles laid out in the agreement. So, if one of the signatories to the agreement was to simply vary from the undertakings they made in the agreement, there would be a legal recourse through the courts to enforcing the agreement, because they are signatories to it. We have all bound ourselves to those principles.

For the benefit of the shadow minister, it is probably in a similar type of regime in which the commonwealth insists that we fulfil the conditions of various treaties made with overseas powers-especially environmental treaties with regard to wetlands, and things such as that. The force is that, if the commonwealth as a signatory breaks the agreement, it can be held to answer for the agreement it has broken in the same way we could hold a signatory government that was not being accountable under the agreement to answer in the courts. However, that is not what we are aiming for: we are aiming for consensus and working together. In the agreement we are not really trying to premise this on, `We will all do the wrong thing so let's try to catch each other out.' We are trying to say, `Let's work cooperatively forward.' In answer to the honourable member's question as to whether there are any hooks to keep us together, the answer is `Yes, there is a legal hook.'

Mr HILL: That was an interesting answer. I take the general point that this will hopefully be a cooperative arrangement and we will all get on swimmingly. However, it is our job to question the nature of the agreement so that we truly understand it. I will reflect on what the minister said then by way of explanation. He was saying that this acts as a kind of contractual arrangement between the various parties that have signed it and that, if one of the parties does not perform according to the contract, there is legal recourse. My reading of the agreement is that all we have agreed to today is to keep talking with each other and to cooperate: We have not agreed to do anything beyond that. Is the minister saying that, when the three parties to the agreement make a decision or reach agreement about a particular thing, say, water flow or water extraction, and the three of them together make that decision, that decision is then subject to legal recourse?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Yes, because in here we agree to pursue policies and strategies so that we are bound in this agreement to pursue policies and strategies. It is a construct that we have to take forward, and that construct has to be guided by the guiding principles. So, it is not just a matter of talking. As a result of this agreement, we have to do something. We have to produce policies and strategies on the catchment, and we also have to report on the state of the rivers. All that has to be done in the light of the guiding principles. It is not just a matter of our saying, `Let's agree to talk', and signing a fancy bit of paper and saying, `Let's keep talking.' It is more a matter of our having started talking. The next phase in the talking which we are bound to by this agreement is to form policies and strategies, and report on the state of the river. They are concrete actions that will come from this. In response to the shadow minister's last question, the other sanction that exists if one of the signatories to this agreement did not behave as they should is that the commonwealth EPBC Act could be triggered, and the shadow minister will know that many jurisdictions are worried about the power and extent of that act.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Mrs Geraghty): I have allowed some latitude on the questioning. Members will have to relate any further questions to the clause itself.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr HILL: In terms of the operation of the agreement, will the minister say whether he will be bringing to this parliament an annual report detailing the decisions and processes of the agreement?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: The review has to be undertaken every five years and the report presented to the parliament. So it is not an annual report. Again, given the nature of the area up there, that is not unreasonable. I will personally give an undertaking that I will be most pleased in five years' time to stand in this place and as minister present the report to the shadow minister.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON: I remind the member for Ross Smith that his question must relate to the clause.

Mr CLARKE: Yes, and it will. Madam Acting Chair, I seek your guidance in the sense that the agreement, which is the guts of this bill, runs from pages 6 to 25. Ordinarily, under standing orders you are allowed to ask only three questions per clause. However, as the guts of the legislation is in this agreement, can some flexibility be shown in the number of questions permitted? I do not anticipate too many, knowing that the minister will answer in a forthright manner, at length and accurately. I may need to go over the quota of three, if he disappoints me.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON: I am not able to allow any more than the three questions to be asked on each clause. However, you can ask questions on the agreement under clauses 3, 4 and 5. That should provide the honourable member with ample opportunity to ask his questions.

Mr CLARKE: I want to take up the point raised by the member for Kaurna. If breaches of any section of this measure occur, no sanctions or penalties would apply. In relation to the member for Kaurna's contribution, as the minister says, through this agreement the three governments are bound by this legislation to discuss issues around the Lake Eyre Basin, and are bound to look at and draw up policies in accordance with the different principles and guidelines set out in this agreement. Once a decision has been agreed to by those three governments following those first two steps, are all three governments then legally bound by those outcomes? If one or more of those three governments break those outcomes that have been agreed to, are they enforceable in a court of law?

As an example, the minister in his second reading explanation refers to the catalyst for this legislation over the original proposal by the Queensland government to irrigate cotton on the Cooper Creek. If, following these steps, the outcome was that there was to be no irrigation of cotton and then the Queensland government went ahead and did it in any event, is the South Australian government or the commonwealth government under this legislation able to go to the Supreme Court in Queensland and get a writ forbidding Queensland irrigating cotton contrary to an agreed outcome?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: The first comment I would make to the member for Ross Smith is that, at present, it is very difficult to get into the Supreme Court: the honourable member has so many actions in the Supreme Court no-one else can get in the door.

Mr Clarke: No, this is Queensland.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Sorry. Having said that, this agreement, it is true, and I started to say this to the shadow minister, basically is based on goodwill and cooperation: it is not a highly prescriptive agreement. In answer to the member for Ross Smith, and I listened carefully to what he said, if three governments agree to do something and there are three signatories to this, why would one government not then do it? In fact, if three governments agree to do it, three governments will do it because-

Mr Clarke: If Rob Borbidge comes back as Premier of Queensland in three years-

Mr Hanna: I will give you 100/1 on that.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: So will I. I will actually take your bet. As he has resigned, it is a bit impossible for him to come back.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: No, I was just thinking of a good retort.

Mr Hill interjecting:

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Never from the dead. The interesting thing is that (and we are making this comparison reasonably correctly), despite the fact that, in a sense, the Murray Darling Basin Commission is a different instrument that, too, is not weighed down by a lot of sanctions. In fact, one of the pluses and, I suppose, minuses of the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council is that every state must agree on every decision before anything can happen. Basically, there must be unanimous agreement between the states and territories before the commission can make a decision.

Mr Hill: It binds its successors in law.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Yes, so will this. Sorry, I missed that point. So will this. I return to the point made by the member for Ross Smith. Much of this, as is a lot of the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council/Ministerial Commission agreement, is based on goodwill between the participating parties, but I do not think that is unreasonable. I know that the member for Ross Smith might have difficulty understanding because, quite seriously, he comes from a highly prescriptive side of politics. I do not think that it is unfair to say that, perhaps, members opposite are more inclined to a stronger regulatory regime than we are on this side of the House.

Mr Hanna: We take that as a compliment.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: I am sure that you do. It is just a different way of looking at the world. On this side of the House we are, at least in theory (because sometimes I think we are inclined to over-regulate, too; I am not saying that we are without fault), perhaps less inclined to regulate than members opposite. But I think that all members would agree that the trend in Australian politics of late seems to be to go more for a cooperative approach; to try to get people to work together; to have, as often as we can, carrots and, where necessary, still sticks. I am not pretending that an Australia exists where you do not need sticks on occasions, but this is more carrot than stick legislation.

I acknowledge that, but given that at the time it was formulated by two Liberal and one Labor Government, I think that it has the elements of the bipartisan approach that will work.

Mr CLARKE: The minister has just confirmed my initial views of this legislation, which is that it is a load of bumpf.

The Hon. M.K. Brindal: It is what?

Mr CLARKE: It is a load of bumpf. It is not worth the paper it is written on at the end of the day. I do not know why we must pass a piece of legislation that is non-enforceable. If it is just an agreement between the states and the commonwealth we will sign an agreement. If it is based on goodwill, wonderful. But in terms of legislative protection, there does not seem to be any. I take the minister to page 13 of the agreement under `Responsibilities and Interests of the States'. I will deal with the states first before I come to the commonwealth. At 4.9, the agreement states:

Each state will continue to have responsibility for its policy formulation and the administration of its legislation relevant to water and related natural resource management within the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement area, but in so doing will to the fullest extent that it is able comply with this agreement and any applicable policies and strategies developed or adopted under it. Further, to the extent that may be necessary, each state will use its best endeavours to secure the passage through its respective parliament of legislation for the purpose of conforming with and implementing this agreement and any such policies and strategies.

In reality, if that third step of the agreement, as we have discussed in terms of developing outcomes, is to become legally binding it must pass through the respective legislation, and may well have to pass through the parliament of one or other of the state jurisdictions to give effect to something that has already been agreed to by this ministerial council after doing all of this consultation. It can still fall because a state parliament refuses to give effect to those agreed outcomes. Although it is not a problem in Queensland, in one sense: it has a single House and, at the moment, a government with a very commanding majority, that is not an issue.

South Australia, of course, with two houses of parliament and neither major party likely to control the upper house, will involve difficulties. Of course, as the member for Kaurna pointed out either in a contribution or by way of interjection, governments come and governments go, irrespective of the size of their majorities at any particular time, just through the normal electoral cycle.

If one looks at the responsibilities and interests of the commonwealth under Part IV, one sees that all the commonwealth has agreed to is monitor the activities of the states in the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement, and to ensure that Australia meets its international obligations in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement on the environment.

The commonwealth is required to ensure that matters of national interest relating to environmental protection, sustainable agricultural water and related natural resources management in the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement are appropriately addressed in consultation with the states. It is waffle; it does not make it legally enforceable and it does not allow a citizen of the state (or an interest group within a particular state) who sees that agreements are, in effect, being torn up by inaction on the part of a state government or the commonwealth to go to the courts to enforce such agreed outcomes-if indeed there are any to enforce. I cannot get over the fact that members opposite and the minister talk about this being a giant stride forward. It is simply a nonsense.

I think we do ourselves an injury by simply talking up this type of legislation as if we are taking major steps forward when it is no more than the three governments signing a memorandum of understanding to try to work in harmony on certain things, but with a let-out clause basically for any of the three governments to do whatever they like, anyway, with the other two governments being absolutely impotent to ensure compliance with the notionally agreed outcomes after all this palaver has been gone through.

There are no monetary penalties or anything of this nature for any breaches of this agreement. So here we have a piece of legislation which has been much trumpeted by the minister and on which this House has spent much of the last two hours. However, in reality, it is no more than a wish list and a hope that three governments will get along and, with goodwill, will do the right thing. We do not need an act of parliament for that, so I do not know why we have this bill before us in the first place, if it has-I will not even say little teeth- as it would appear to me to have no teeth or validity whatsoever in terms of enforcement. It is a statement of general principles. Well, do not waste our time on that: just have an MOU signed by the three governments.

I again ask the question: how is this agreement, once it is enacted into law, actually enforceable? Where are the teeth, either for the individual governments concerned, to ensure observance of outcomes, or for interested parties-the community generally- to take the respective governments to court if necessary to ensure that they do what they are supposed to be doing, indeed, making sure that they draw up the policies and strategies? Where are the teeth in the legislation?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: It has certainly taken two hours, and perhaps we can see why in the light of the last contribution. If I were a nasty and vindictive person, which the member for Ross Smith knows I am not, I would actually have barked back that perhaps I am surprised that such a small brain resides in such a large man. But I will content myself with musing only that indeed he must have been doorknocking too much in Kilburn lately-

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Mrs Geraghty): Order!

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: -because the member for Ross Smith obviously does not understand the nature of this bill. It is this: when the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was first signed all those years ago, it had about as much in it as this has in it. Look at how that relationship, how that governance body, has matured over time. It started from a similar genesis: a small step forward.

I would like to know how the member for Ross Smith believes that this jurisdiction, the commonwealth or the Queensland jurisdiction, each sovereign jurisdiction in its own right with a parliament that claims its ancient rights and privileges, can actually bind other sovereign jurisdictions. It is impossible. No state-indeed, no country, principality or power in the history of the world-has been able to pass laws that bound another sovereign territory. What we do is enter into agreements, and those agreements can be given legal effect.

Why do we bring them into parliament? The member for Ross Smith has been here long enough to know the answer to that. It is because this parliament can bind successive governments in this state. If it were not to be ratified by this parliament, it is merely a document signed by me as the current minister which could be repudiated later, not just by any Liberal minister but by any other future minister. What this does is bring this agreement which I signed into this House and say to the 47 members of this House who are not the executive government, `Will you ratify this?', so that every future government, every future minister, Labor and Liberal in this State, is bound to this agreement until the 69 members of these two Houses decide that it is no longer binding on the state of South Australia.

I can see no better reason for bringing an agreement into this House than to ask the people of South Australia, through their parliament, whether I have or have not done the right thing, and whether this thing which I have done should be binding not only on me but also on all of my successors until this parliament deems otherwise. I am surprised that I have to give the member for Ross Smith an object lesson in parliamentary process, because he was a very good deputy leader of the opposition, the best they have had for a long, long while, and he should know some of the fundamental practices of this House. Let me quote to him clause 5, as follows:

Facilitation of the Agreement. The minister and other instrumentalities and agencies of the state are authorised and required to do anything reasonably necessary to ensure the performance and observance of this agreement.

So, this requires me as minister in the state of South Australia to do anything reasonably necessary to ensure the performance and observance of this agreement. So, in passing this bill, this House is making a requirement of me and of the executive government of this parliament to fulfil the aspects of the agreement as set out, as will the commonwealth, and as will the state of Queensland.

We are not trying to pass a law to bind the state of Queensland or the Commonwealth of Australia-we simply cannot do that-but we have agreed in this agreement to pass a law in our sovereign jurisdictions to bind us to the will of our parliaments and, in binding us to the will of our parliaments, so bind us in a joint enterprise so that we can move forward. I would have thought that was a very good democratic process, one which would be applauded by the member for Ross Smith. I weep because he has to spend so much time on doorknocking that his mind has become addled in the process.

Mr HILL: Will the minister explain the budgetary process relating to this, how much funding the government will commit to it and where we will find that funding allocated?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: These decisions will be made at the ministerial forum. The level of service that is required and the works that may be required, if any, have yet to be determined. I give the committee an undertaking that, through the budget bilaterals and signing this agreement, this House will commit as much as is necessary for the proper fulfilment of these functions under this agreement. I hope that I have the committee's absolute understanding that, if we can get the commonwealth to contribute slightly more than either the state of Queensland or the state of South Australia, that would have the complete backing of every member of this House. The commonwealth has a much larger purse and much deeper pockets than we have and, if we could get them into a two-for-one arrangement or something like that, I would expect the backing of this House to do so.

I am not being evasive; I cannot give you an answer, because we have not determined what resources are required. However, I can give you an absolute undertaking that we will adequately resource the project. There is simply no point in this parliament going through this. If the member for Ross Smith described it as a charade, I think that is unkind, but it would be a charade if we bring it in here and I am not prepared to resource it adequately. The shadow minister, the member for Ross Smith and every other member of this House would have the absolute right to come back and say that I misled the House, that I promised something that we did not deliver.

Mr HILL: I take it from what the minister said that there is no agreement yet on the balance between the states either? There are three parties to this agreement. Will the parties take turns in chairing the commission or will it always be chaired by the commonwealth and, if it is always to be chaired by the commonwealth, will it be chaired by the environment minister? My concern is that the commonwealth might appoint a primary industries minister to chair it and he may not necessarily be sympathetic to the environmental purposes behind the agreement.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: The shadow minister might, in 10 or 20 years, when he becomes a minister learn that the commonwealth when it is involved in anything considers that it has a bigger chair than anyone else and tends to take the chairmanship of these committees. The commonwealth will chair this committee. The Minister for the Environment has been identified as the appropriate minister to be the lead minister, and I believe he will continue to be so as long as there is a Liberal government in Canberra. However, a future Liberal government (not one led by the current Prime Minister) or, indeed, a future Labor government, I think has the right to determine who the lead minister will be.

However, can I just say this, and I say it absolutely honestly: perhaps the shadow minister might be able to come to a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting as an observer. The Hon. Warren Truss, the Minister for Agriculture in the commonwealth, actually chairs the council and does an exceptionally fine job. I do not think that I have ever heard anyone say that, despite the fact that he is the Minister for Agriculture, he tries to chair that body or steer it in any way that reflects other than the best balanced interests for the basin ( both ecologically and in terms of sustainable use of the resource).

I say to the shadow minister absolutely directly that my total understanding under this government is that it will be Senator Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment, but if in any conceivable event in the future it would be this Minister for Agriculture, we would be just as ably led. That is as much as I can say. If Kim Beazley were ever to be Prime Minister, I do not know whom he would elect as his lead minister. He has every right to determine those matters, and, indeed, a future Liberal government might reconfigure this matter.

Mr CLARKE: Without wanting to be too harsh on the minister, as he tried not to be too harsh on me, I must say that, when the honourable minister rises to his feet in this House, he subtracts from the sum knowledge of this House on each occasion. In the minister's contribution to my last question he referred to the early beginnings of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, which led to the much stronger legislation that we now have in place. I simply draw to the Minister's attention that it was because of those feeble states' rights-type arguments that originally gave birth to such a pathetic, weak instrument all those years ago that we have the sorts of problems that we have today with respect to the quality of the River Murray, and because it lacked teeth and enforceable rights.

The clean-up of the River Murray and the Murray Darling Basin generally could have been tackled many decades ago except for the fact that states argued over this claptrap of sovereign rights, states' rights, in this area. I have often maintained and continue to maintain the belief that issues of the Murray Darling and issues such as this with Lake Eyre, which go beyond the borders of one state, should rightly be in the hands of the national government, with full sovereign powers in that area and the right to do whatever it needs to do to ensure the cleanup of our Murray Darling Basin and to protect the Lake Eyre Basin.

I do not think that we want to perpetuate that same mistake by bringing in such pathetically weak legislation as this and saying, `This is a first step: if we wait another 50 years we will have stronger legislation.' By then we may well have destroyed the Lake Eyre Basin as we have destroyed, in large measure, the Murray Darling Basin, because we did not have tough, enforceable legislation in place at the beginning.

Was the position of this government to seek stronger legislation with greater and more enforceable rights for states such as South Australia to ensure that agreements, once entered into, can and must be carried out by all the participating governments?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Somebody behind me whispered that if we added my IQ to that of the member for Ross Smith and then subtracted mine, the answer would be zero, but I will not repeat that! We consider that this is the right legislation for the right time. We believe that this is of its time and of its place, so we are happy with the legislation. It is as we would seek it to be.

Hindsight is always 100 per cent. It is easy for us to sit in this place and criticise the Murray Darling Basin Commission, but it was formed in a different time for a different purpose. Until about 20 years ago, no one actually realised that there was a problem.

Mr Clarke: Yes, they did. Ralph Jacobi, 30-odd years ago, an eminent scientist, spoke in the House about it.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: I apologise: I stand corrected. Fewer people, and those we would now acknowledge to have been very far-sighted and visionary, saw the problem: the general population did not. Certainly, governments did not, no matter whether they were Liberal or Labor. I can remember a Premier of this state of very famous memory who promised to build Chowilla Dam within 100 days of his election. Thank God it was a commitment that he never managed to fulfil, because that would have been the biggest environmental disaster in the whole river system. We are talking about a South Australian Premier and about 20 years ago. None of us is blameless in the way the Murray- Darling has evolved. Does the shadow minister remember the Premier, or should I say who it was?

Mr Clarke: We won Chaffey.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Yes, I know, and that gentleman was not right in why he threw away the government of the day, either. Since we have realised that we have many more responsibilities than we first thought under the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, we have assumed those responsibilities and are now taking steps to correct measures that need to be corrected. However, the mistakes were not made in negligence, and they were not made because of a weak agreement. They were made because at that time people did not understand the scientific consequences of what was happening.

In answer to the member for Ross Smith's question, I say that this is the right legislation at the right time and we think it will take us into the future. I refute that it is namby-pamby, weak or any of the other adjectives the honourable member used. I am quite sure that this legislation will outlast both the member for Ross Smith and me in this place.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (4 and 5), schedule and title passed.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL (Minister for Water Resources): I move:

That the sitting of the House be extended beyond 6 p.m.

Motion carried.